HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Gender & Orientation » History of Feminism (Group) » Seen on DU
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 06:07 AM

Seen on DU

This discussion thread was locked by boston bean (a host of the History of Feminism group).

How did Rachel lose so much weight?

I'm asking this in all earnestness...not being flip. I watch her every night so I don't really notice such things day-to-day. But when she cuts away to some segment she taped a year ago - hell even three months ago, she looked bloated (back then) by comparison. And now she looks hot...even though she insists on dressing like a boy and wearing blue shoes off set.

Point being, I as a heterosexual male am still in love with her, weight or no weight.

Other point being - what's her secret? Is it a pill (that I can buy at GNC?) Is it no midweek drinking? I've scoured the intertubes and can't find anything that alludes to it.

If you know something...please elabourate.


Feel free to discuss or add your own "Seen on DU".

The above is an OP in GD.


86 replies, 11535 views

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 86 replies Author Time Post
Reply Seen on DU (Original post)
boston bean Apr 2012 OP
iverglas Apr 2012 #1
boston bean Apr 2012 #2
iverglas Apr 2012 #3
boston bean Apr 2012 #4
iverglas Apr 2012 #5
boston bean Apr 2012 #6
iverglas Apr 2012 #7
boston bean Apr 2012 #9
redqueen Apr 2012 #14
Bluenorthwest Apr 2012 #12
iverglas Apr 2012 #15
Bluenorthwest Apr 2012 #16
iverglas Apr 2012 #18
boston bean Apr 2012 #20
iverglas Apr 2012 #21
boston bean Apr 2012 #22
iverglas Apr 2012 #25
Violet_Crumble Apr 2012 #42
iverglas Apr 2012 #46
iverglas Apr 2012 #24
CrispyQ Apr 2012 #35
Little Star Apr 2012 #37
seabeyond Apr 2012 #17
Bluenorthwest Apr 2012 #19
seabeyond Apr 2012 #23
redqueen Apr 2012 #34
eridani Apr 2012 #43
eridani Apr 2012 #44
iverglas Apr 2012 #45
eridani Apr 2012 #48
Little Star Apr 2012 #8
iverglas Apr 2012 #10
Little Star Apr 2012 #11
seabeyond Apr 2012 #13
laconicsax Apr 2012 #26
seabeyond Apr 2012 #28
MadrasT Apr 2012 #27
seabeyond Apr 2012 #29
MadrasT Apr 2012 #30
seabeyond Apr 2012 #31
laconicsax Apr 2012 #32
seabeyond Apr 2012 #33
Scout Apr 2012 #36
Little Star Apr 2012 #38
MadrasT Apr 2012 #40
redqueen Apr 2012 #41
iverglas Apr 2012 #39
laconicsax Apr 2012 #47
iverglas Apr 2012 #49
seabeyond Apr 2012 #50
iverglas Apr 2012 #51
seabeyond Apr 2012 #52
iverglas Apr 2012 #54
seabeyond Apr 2012 #56
MadrasT Apr 2012 #53
iverglas Apr 2012 #55
redqueen May 2012 #57
seabeyond May 2012 #58
redqueen May 2012 #59
seabeyond May 2012 #60
MadrasT May 2012 #61
redqueen May 2012 #62
Scout May 2012 #63
seabeyond May 2012 #64
MadrasT May 2012 #65
seabeyond May 2012 #66
iverglas May 2012 #67
redqueen May 2012 #68
MadrasT May 2012 #69
BlueIris May 2012 #70
seabeyond May 2012 #71
laconicsax May 2012 #72
redqueen May 2012 #73
laconicsax May 2012 #74
redqueen May 2012 #75
seabeyond May 2012 #76
MadrasT May 2012 #77
redqueen May 2012 #78
seabeyond May 2012 #79
redqueen May 2012 #80
seabeyond May 2012 #81
seabeyond May 2012 #82
MadrasT Jul 2012 #83
seabeyond Jul 2012 #84
boston bean Jul 2012 #85
seabeyond Jul 2012 #86

Response to boston bean (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 06:27 AM

1. I read the original and the discussion

 

and frankly, I can think of better things to get worked up about.

I don't know anything about Rachel Maddow, but I gather it's factual that she gained and lost weight. And yes, really, there is a style of dressing that is "like a boy" -- Ellen deGeneres's long insistence on wearing what appeared to be ill-fitting men's pants, but were undoubtedly carefully tailored to create that effect, is an example. Me wandering around in a hoodie and sweat pants isn't dressing "like a boy" in today's world; I read that as meaning expressly emulating a masculine style. I have no idea what blue shoes are about.

I dunno. I just didn't see that post as ill-intentioned or laden with covert meaning.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #1)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 06:32 AM

2. This part

And now she looks hot... even though she insists on dressing like a boy and wearing blue shoes off set.


Was the tip off for me.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #2)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 06:49 AM

3. I just don't read it the same way

 

Doing something insistently is doing it constantly/exclusively, and that's part of the way I took it. Insisting on doing something is also making a point of doing something, and I know that's sure how I saw Ellen deGeneres's trouser wardrobe. She didn't just go to the store and buy some jeans or sweatpants; she had pants made (I assume) on a male garment template, cut to accomodate the male physique, and I thought they looked sufficiently ridiculous that there had to be a statement being made.

Maybe Maddow does just wear jeans and Tshirts; like I said, I've seen her once or twice maybe but I don't know anything about her. But still ... I dunno, some off the cuff remarks are just off the cuff remarks.

I'm not saying I'm right or you're wrong, I hasten to say. I just saw it differently.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #3)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 06:53 AM

4. After re-reading it a few times

I can see what you are saying....

But, usually, when I see someone say "even though" in this context, leads me to believe a person finds something wrong or off with it, but is willing to overlook.

Never mind the post is about her physical appearance......

That's my interpretation.....

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #4)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 07:05 AM

5. can't resist

 


"Rachel Maddow was a total babe in high school"

Hm. Really?

As for Maddow today, I'd just say she's kinda ordinary looking, and the fact that somebody finds her hot might speak well of him actually liking a woman for her mind.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #5)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 07:17 AM

6. Nope, still not there, iverglas.

The posts substance was about her physical appearance.... even though.......

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #6)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 07:34 AM

7. how many threads have there been at this place

 

about Michelle Obama's physical appearance?

Even when she appears in public in ridiculous meringues and wedding cake get-ups, people are gaga over her looks -- her looks, nothing more.

To me, it's all just fool idolatry. We don't have "first ladies" where I am, and I've managed to get back to not knowing exactly what the Prime Minister's bleached-blonde wife's name is. Lurleen or something. (And nobody tell me or I'll have to have it in my head again!) The burbling about Michelle Obama's looks was all really just driven by Obama-worship.

But anyhow, if there was anybody saying anything negative about all the thread after thread whose substances were about nothing but Michelle Obama's physical appearance, I missed 'em. And those I did find genuinely dumb and offensive, because that really is all they were about. She was wonderful because (a) she was married to Barrack Obama, and (b) she was hot. Which, the being hot, was really just because she was married to Obama, as far as I can tell. But anyhow, nobody objected to all the talk about her physique and her wardrobe and so on.

I'm still not arguing! Just saying how some things strike me as odd.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #7)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 07:45 AM

9. There has always been a double standard on DU.

many who are liberals can be sexist, as long as it's seems like a compliement, or is attacking a republican woman.

Also, the post is a bit offensive in a cat calling sort of way. Rachel Maddow is a lesbian. This seems a bit over the line in that respect as well.

The post says he is a heterosexual male who thinks Rachel is HOT. Why all the declarations?

I'm having a hard time verbalizing that part of it, but I hope you see what I mean.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #9)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 08:17 AM

14. There is a double standard throughout society.

Not just in the US. It's a documented fact. Women's appearance is scrutinized more. And more harshly. And in a different way.

Someone posted similar commentator about Jon Stewart and it made it very obvious how different it is for men vs women.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #6)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 08:09 AM

12. First, let's look at how boys dress. Do they dress, as does Rachel, in a low cut jacket

showing a couple of inches of silk, french cut shirt all in soft colors from the natural spectrum? Do they sport subtle yet quiet apparent make up on their eyes, cheeks and lips? Her hair, moussed and swept up, casually yet clearly styled. To say that is 'dressing like a boy' makes one wonder if the OP has seen any boys after the time of the Sun King.
And if he meant men, when he said 'boys' that's no more accurate.
And yes, there is such a thing as dressing like a boy. It means just that, and Rachel used to dress that way. Jeans, white tee, precision hair cut, no make up at all. Like a boy. Silk designer jacket with a hint of chemise peeking out in the shade of her eye shadow is not how boys dress.
So if you look at what Rachel is actually wearing, and imagine that on a boy headed off to his 7th grade soccer practice, do you think that boy is going to fit in with the others, or is he not dressed at all like a boy?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #12)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 08:19 AM

15. hm

 

Again, I have to say I don't really know what her wardrobe pattern is.

But everything you've described really is "like a boy". It's just feminized. Take every item of a boy outfit/look and mousse it, paint it, cut it low, make it silk -- it's still what it is. Cute trademark, but come on, she's the one who put it together, and apparently wears it basically as a uniform with minor variations, and it's pretty obvious what it is designed to be.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #15)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 08:36 AM

16. So, you are saying that when a youth hockey team in Alberta puts on their street

clothes, they are dressed like Rachel Maddow? That's news to me. So it is not like the clothing boys wear. At all. To say so is simply false.
That's not how boys dress anywhere, nor men. She's dressed in women's clothing, wearing make up you can see. I don't see boys wearing any of that. An open jacket or a 'dress jacket' of any sort is not 'an item from a boy outfit'. That is not how boys dress at all. A stronger case could get made around 'dressing with a masculine feeling' or perhaps 'like a man'. A boy? No.
And again, Rachel used to dress like a young man, now she does not. There is a huge difference. Take a look at how she used to dress. Jeans, white tees, an actual man's hair cut, no make up of any kind at all, trainers. That's a boy outfit. The camera called for a whole new look for her. And she's got one.
I guess if you call any form of pants, tee, or jacket 'male clothing' and only dresses and skirts are 'real woman's clothing' then what you say applies. Many times in our era, the entire difference in a piece of clothing gender to gender is color or cut. To me, if her clothing would get most boys mocked and hassled if they wore it, then it is not much like boy clothes.
If a boy can not wear it in our culture, then it is boy clothing. That is simple logic.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #16)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 08:42 AM

18. I tell ya what

 

You argue with yourself. You're probably more interested in arguing with you than I am.

If you want to walk into this thread, presumably read what I had said in it alreeady, and then spew shit like your first sentence above, I think you might find yourself arguing with yourself quite a bit. Then maybe you'll get bored and wander off.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #18)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 08:51 AM

20. What did BlueNorthwest say that

pissed you off?

I'm truly not seeing it. Please tell us more. I say this sincerely. I am missing something...... I've missed stuff before, lord knows.....

Are you coming at this from a different feminist perspective than some of us? If so, please tell us.

Maybe you are saying clothing shouldn't matter and there is too much focus on it. That people should not be offended because to do so is only strengthening the gender roles....

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #20)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 08:59 AM

21. one does not enter a conversation that is underway

 

and say to one of the participants "you are saying ...".

I was not saying. I don't come to this group to be told in public that I said something I didn't say. If I want that, I'll go to the Guns forum.

You and I were having what I thought was a quite civil difference of opinion, and talking about our perspectives. That was not what bluenorthwest was doing.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #21)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 09:02 AM

22. ah, ok.

see I missed it.

Obviously, there is a miscommunication happening and we all do need to be respectful of one another.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #22)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 10:09 AM

25. a guide

 

No miscommunication; a particular form of communication.

http://www.angelfire.com/rant/pearly/htmls1/gop-jargon.html

especially starting at:

"Let us consider a few examples of the phenomena I am talking about."

The "so, you" is where you stop reading.

I do, anyway.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #21)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 12:52 AM

42. One also doesn't tell someone they're spewing shit...

The reality is that at DU there's a lot of stuff that starts with 'so yr saying...' Instead of getting abusive at someone who does it, it makes more sense to me to point out that's not what yr saying and to explain why. Sometimes people have honestly not gotten what's been said, and then sometimes they have but decide to play games. I didn't get the impression that bluenorthwest is falling into the latter category, and I know from experience that people tend to react better to an explanation of what's being said than to insults....

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Violet_Crumble (Reply #42)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 02:06 PM

46. there is indeed a lot of stuff at DU

 

"that starts with 'so yr saying...'." And goes on to attribute an idea or words to someone that they never thought or said, and that in fact no reasonable or decent person would ever think or say. In this instance, a totally ludicrous notion was ascribed to me, that distorted what I said, and an argument then built on the misrepresentation of my thoughts and words. This quite simply precludes any further reasonable, candid discussion.

And it's obnoxious no matter who does it, and no matter where. It's particularly prevalent in the Guns forum. And I find it just as offensive no matter who does it. Here's an example from just now, in fact, with my emphases:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117235299#post8
(I posted a link to the OP there at the bottom of this thread, it being one that I think is far, far more malevolent than the one this thread is about.)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 01:14 PM
iverglas
14. yup, I make this point at every opportunity

"Free speech" itself is the other biggie, and it's deployed to great effect here in Canada as well. In fact, gun militants in the US try that avenue: wandering around campuses wearing empty holsters as a protest against not being allowed to have actual guns on campus is "free speech".

(A few years ago here, a doctor, i.e. not a person without significant personal resources, went to the Supreme Court claiming that the universal health plan violated his right to life and security of the person ... and won, in one of the worst decisions I've ever seen. A narrow victory in that case, but a foot in the door of diminishing the ability of most people in Canada to exercise their rights to life and security of the person.)

Rights become a weapon with which to bludgeon any disadvantaged group that makes the least effort to achieve equality and any attempt to improve society for the benefit of the vast majority of people, and combat any gains made toward equal opportunity.

The aim of many aspects of their battle plan is intimidation, and their efforts rely heavily on provocation. People wearing firearms to children's soccer games and people displaying giant billboards of aborted fetuses on university campuses (or publishing bigoted cartoons, e.g.) are provocateurs, no more and no less. When decent people -- and in particular the direct targets of their actions -- take exception to their despicable behaviours, it's all "my rights! my rights!"

No one in the world has the least difficulty seeing exactly what the right wing is up to when it does these things.


Sat Apr 28, 2012, 01:24 PM
gejohnston
15. speech you don't like is intimidation? (DID I SAY THAT? NO)

wandering around campuses wearing empty holsters as a protest against not being allowed to have actual guns on campus is "free speech".
How is that not free speech? It really sounds like you would ban speech you don't like.
(DID I SAY ANYTHING ABOUT BANNING ANYTHING? NO.)


It is very seldom innocent, and IT is ABUSIVE, and I don't pretend not to notice.

Your impression apparently differed from mine. Oh well.


I know from experience that people tend to react better to an explanation of what's being said than to insults....

Well, I react better to a request for clarification than to a grossly false and ugly and/or dumb representation of things I say -- edit: which IS an INSULT. I suggest that people who engage in the latter go first when it comes to altering behaviour.

I think I posted this already, but in case you missed it, I'll excerpt:

http://www.angelfire.com/rant/pearly/htmls1/gop-jargon.html

Let us consider a few examples of the phenomena I am talking about. This message was in response to my essay on the hate mail I've been getting :
so, let's see. If we disagree with your spin and erroneous conclusions, we are sending "hate mail"? my god, what hypocracy, what insular thinking (and frnakly, I worry about using that last word)
My problem with a passage like this, I repeat, is not exactly that it is nasty, but that it is nasty in a stereotyped and cultivated way. It is part of a technology of nastiness. Let's consider how it works. Start with the first sentence. In the jargon, expressions like "let me see if I've got this straight" are used to preface a distorted paraphrase of an opponent's words. This is a matter of routine; it's part of what a linguist would call the "phasal lexicon" of the new jargon. In fact, "so, let's see" does two kinds of work: it prefaces a distortion of what I said, and it pretends that the distortion is what I said. It twists reason, and projects that twisting onto me. I, of course, never said that everyone who disagrees with me is sending hate mail. Never said it, never meant it, never implied it, never presupposed it, never thought it.

... Notice, too, the rhetorical question ("If we disagree with your spin and erroneous conclusions, we are sending 'hate mail'?"). This is also common. It's a way of making an obviously false assertion -- in this case, the assertion that I have said that everyone who disagrees with me has ispo facto sent hate mail -- without admitting to it. Then the "my god", etc, which assumes an answer to the rhetorical question, as if the rhetorical question's proffered paraphrase were something that I said. Then, of course, the flood of nasty language.

The same writer continues as follows :
Yep, you must really enjoy democracy if you feel that Al's team is absolutely with clean hands while W is totally wrong.
Having worked himself into a state of righteous indignation, he starts in with the sarcasm: "yep". Then another characteristic pattern of the new jargon: reframing issues in terms of straw-man extremes. He ascribes to me a view that is framed in terms of absolutes. Notice how the straw man is amplified even further through imbalance : it's Al's team versus W (alone). ...

The post I replied to followed that EXACT pattern.

I don't intend to be treated to attacks based on misrepresentations of what I say in this group. As I said, the thread up until then consisted of an exchange of views in which no one had misrepresented anyone else's view and no one had attacked anyone for the view they held; there was a difference of opinion and both opinions were explained quite calmly and reasonably, I thought. There was no need or reason for the kind of reply I got, and I am quite comfortable with my response to it.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #15)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 10:04 AM

24. this is what I'm talking about

 

In the women's fashion world, it's called the "menswear" look. It comes and goes.



It is distinguished by a combination of at least some of several features: fabric (often tending to pinstripe or grey flannel), jackets, and specifically jackets cut a particular way (long, lapels, low-buttoned), button-up shirts, and of course trousers (although a collection will usually include skirts). A particular ensemble won't likely have all of them, or it would just be "men's clothing". The jacket will have a camisole underneath, the shirt will be worn without a jacket, etc. It can be "feminized" with accessories -- high heels, for instance; or played up with accessories -- a fedora or wingtips. But it is recognizably "menswear", and that's what it is called in the women's fashion world.

Obviously, very short hair suits the look.

While a woman who is a slave to fashion may buy some outfits in this style whenever the trend rolls around, not many women dress like this consistently during a season, let alone year-round or year after year. Mot women wear a variety of things, whether they are dressing for success or dressing like a slob. Different colours. At least the occasional skirt. Different styles of top -- pullover, shirt, blouse, tank, T. Different styles of jacket, if it's part of their standard wardrobe -- collarless, double-breasted, short and boxy, long and loose, etc. I doubt that any of us knows a woman who wears the same style, let alone same basic outfit, day after day. Hilary Clinton.

From what I can tell by googling images, Maddow does.

Two years ago:



Note: menswear style jacket: lapels, low-buttoned, pinstripes; men's-cut trousers (women's trousers just aren't cut like that across the lower abdomen/crotch)

Last month:



Again: standard menswear style jacket: tweed, basic lapel/button arrangement



Same cut jacket, this time in chalk stripe.

Compare and contrast:


or http://www4.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Emporio+Armani+Milan+Fashion+Week+Menswear+Mjy2yc1RRrgl.jpg

Come on. It's menswear.

And I can see somebody calling it "dressing like a boy" rather than "like a man" because she insists (yes) on the sneakers, and it has that insouciance thing about it.

It's her image. She has carefully crafted it and she cultivates it. What, is nobody supposed to notice?

And she evidently lost weight. Was nobody supposed to notice that either? If not, why would she have bothered? I haven't seen anything to suggest she was actually overweight.

I know precisely zero about the poster in question. I just read him saying he thought she was hot as wow, she must be like super-hot, because I'm straight and she's a lesbian and I still think she's hot. Which, again, suggests to me that he's reading her for the articles.

But that's all at face value, and I know as well as anyone that sometimes things aren't what they seem on the surface. I just don't know that I'd have been as quick to look for something underneath, is pretty much all.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #24)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 02:45 PM

35. Here was what pissed me off about the post:

...she looked bloated (back then) by comparison. And now she looks hot...



He goes on to state that he's still in love with her, weight or no weight, yet he felt it necessary to start a thread to discuss her appearance & call her bloated.




Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrispyQ (Reply #35)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 03:38 PM

37. +1

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #12)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 08:38 AM

17. the poster that started that thread has a history with women

every post i read of his, he has a really really.... did i say.... really young GF that is so in love and all over him and he is such a confirmed bachelor but really really young GF.... yada yada yada.

i expect no less of a post from that poster.

just surprised we had not heard about the really young GF

du has all kinds of people. and this is how this poster looks at women.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #17)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 08:46 AM

19. The OP we are discussing pissed me off royally.

I tell you what. Make a society in which boys can dress like Rachel if they want, then if they do, we can all say she dresses like them. At this time, that is not the case.
The stuff she wears, boys do not wear and are not welcome to wear in our society. So to say that they are is uncool. They are not.
The OP in question was six kinds of awful, sexist, homophobic, crude, you name it.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #19)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 09:13 AM

23. he said stupid all over the place. and how many of us have had men tell us we should dress like a

"lady", or "girl" certainly not a woman, lol. because he does not see women as adults, but someone for ownership. there were many missteps in the post. the only reason i went into the thread is talking about the weight loss, and i have been watching her forever and have never seen a difference.

then i read the post and was a.... oh fuck, how stupid.

so ya, i hear ya.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #19)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 11:32 AM

34. +1000000

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #5)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 04:39 AM

43. Her current look suits her far better, IMO n/t

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #1)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 04:44 AM

44. "Like a boy" depends on how you are built

I'm so bottom heavy that it makes not the slightest difference what kind of pants I wear--looking like a boy is out of the question. Narrow hipped women often look boyish regardless of the pants that they wear--and pants taylored for men probably fit them better.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #44)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 01:42 PM

45. in fact, pants tailored for men fit me better

 

I'm the total opposite of bottom-heavy, and I'm very short in the torso, both top and bottom, and I've been unable to wear women's trousers my entire life, skinny or not skinny. They sag and billow in the bum and the crotch hangs down several inches, or I hoist the waist halfway up to my bra band. I find men's jeans or men's pants with pleated fronts that fit. I don't look like I'm wearing men's pants; I look like I'm wearing pants that fit.

And that just isn't the case with the trousers in the photo I posted, and the ones so long worn by Ellen deGeneres as I mentioned. The trousers don't actually fit properly, and that's quite plain from the pictures: they look like women wearing mens' pants ... even though they may well have them tailored to look just that way. They're a statement. If somebody makes a statement, I assume they want it to be received.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #45)

Sun Apr 29, 2012, 02:05 AM

48. I've never quite gotten the "statement" business

I just can't see why anyone wouldn't just work with their natural shape, whatever it happens to be. If she wanted a cross-dressing effect, why not a blazer and tie with pants that fit right?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 07:37 AM

8. I found that OP very offensive for more than one reason. n/t

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Little Star (Reply #8)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 07:45 AM

10. well ...

 

won't you share?

I'm honestly not getting it, but that doesn't mean that I think anybody else's reaction to it isn't legitimate.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #10)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 08:01 AM

11. The first thing that struck me was...

(god, I hope I can word this right) the way the OP talked about finding Rachel attractive even though he was straight and she was a lesbian. The second thing was the way the OP talked about her body image and dress.

I know I may not have the right words here but it felt like bigotry and sexism to me. It raised my blood pressure that's for sure and made me uncomfortable.

I'm not very good with wording but I felt very offended by that OP.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 08:17 AM

13. Androids the prostitutes of the future?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002615095

Professors in New Zealand believe that by 2050, Amsterdam's red light district may be full of android prostitutes, whose prices will be controlled by the city council. Are prostibots in your future?


i like this one. and the reason i like it so much is firstly, one of the first poster calls us out as junior sex something. right off the bat. minding own business. dont give a flying fuck about men fucking a machine. but i am thinking, surely the men would rather say.... hey, men are not this pathetic. quit making us this. so i stand up for men right off the bat. the thread then spent all the time men booyahing fucking a machine and me and red being men bashers.... when really, i was addressing a post that had called us out.

and really, it is a hoot.

suggest a man might have a little more class than that and you would think that i was "man bashing"

*** what an interesting, clever, ever running thread. i like. ***

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #13)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 10:28 AM

26. It really says something to say that johns would be just as happy fucking an inanimate object.

 

But no, prostitution isn't at all about the objectification and dehumanizing of women.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laconicsax (Reply #26)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 10:52 AM

28. good point, lol. nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #13)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 10:38 AM

27. There are some people

Who have machine fetishes. There is a market for this and some of those folks would think a bot was superior to a human, and others who would think it is just an interesting kinky alternative. If the kinky fetish folks want to go for it, all right by me.

But I think for most "vanilla" folks it would never be a satisfying substitution for a real live woman.

I don't see androids as prostitutes of the future, but more like an advancement in the fetish industry.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Reply #27)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 10:55 AM

29. i really dont care. this is really one of those situations where

it has nothing to do with me. i am tired of the ever present message that ALL men are about sticking their penis in ALL things, ALL the time and there is nothing more to a man than that. and arent they awesome. SOME men, might be insulted by that caricature.

kinda like womens ONLY worth/value is their looks

there are going to be men and women hold on tight to these because they get a pay off. we have been talking about those payoffs. and also the damage it does to individual, family and society as a whole.

that is my only interest.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #29)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 11:07 AM

30. Oh, yes. I understand that.

i am tired of the ever present message that ALL men are about sticking their penis in ALL things, ALL the time and there is nothing more to a man than that.


And they are all uncontrollable (and unaccountable) because they are slaves to their penises and testosterone.

Walking, fucking rage machines, dontcha know?

I agree that it is a pathetic and insulting characterization.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Reply #30)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 11:12 AM

31. I agree that it is a pathetic and insulting characterization.

see, i am thinking that, too. and being the fair and balanced gal that i am, i wanted to be supportive and say that a man does not have to play into the caricature. to me that is support.

i have been reading about japan and what is happening there. i read an article a year or so ago that 43% men and 58% women from ages 18-34 thought sex icky....

that is sad.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #31)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 11:17 AM

32. Well, from a certain standpoint, sex is icky.

 

That standpoint being that bodily fluids are icky.

It isn't a healthy point of view, but there's a lot of repression all over the world.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laconicsax (Reply #32)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 11:20 AM

33. no its snot... lol. hey,

if you think about the ick factor we would have died out long ago. can't let that hold you back. but that is exactly the point. yes. and you know, they are having a crisis in their homeland cause of the "ick" factor.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 03:18 PM

36. i just get really sick of being "expected to care" if a man (or a woman) thinks someone is hot

i.e. fuckable, or not. i really really really don't care who "you" want to fuck! honest!

got into it with someone on a thread about (so-called) compliments to women from men ... why the fuck should a woman care if a stranger (or someone she knows) thinks she's hot? i don't dress for other people, i dress for me, in what i'm comfortable in and in what i think i look good in (and if i'm not comfortable in it, i won't look good in it).

and when a strange man "pays me a compliment" i am more likely to be creeped out by it than flattered. i don't want to think about some strange guy wanting to fuck me ... ick.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scout (Reply #36)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 03:40 PM

38. "i really really really don't care who "you" want to fuck! honest!" LOL, well put.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scout (Reply #36)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 06:13 PM

40. Yes, it is a headscratcher for me too. n/t

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scout (Reply #36)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 06:25 PM

41. It's one thing to say someone looks nice ...

or that you like what they're wearing, etc. There's a line that gets crossed when how hot the person looks becomes.the focus. The increasing pornification of society has seemingly made this fairly obvious boundary invisible to many people. It always reminds me of the movie Idiocracy, and the way people in that dystopian future are so focused on hotness and sex.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 05:28 PM

39. I've got a better one

 

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117235299#post8

I'll let it be a surprise. Try not to let your eyes spin out of control.

Do we need a project?

Oh, and don't miss the thread on the same board about the guy who mistook his girlfriend for a hog.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Original post)

Sun Apr 29, 2012, 12:47 AM

47. A tiny bit off-topic, but relevant as it pertains to the pro-patriarchy crowd...

 

Dan Savage is being called a bully in the Religion group because for saying that using the Bible to justify homophobia is stupid.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Original post)

Mon Apr 30, 2012, 09:27 AM

49. "Michelle Obama looks stunning...edited to add more pics"

 

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002623014

I'm searching that thread for the objections to threads commenting on women's appearance ...

As I was saying.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #49)

Mon Apr 30, 2012, 09:33 AM

50. the essense of what we have been talking. "hot". "hot" implies fuckable

reducing a woman to a fuck.

stunning, classy, beautiful.... though it is not ideal reducing to a woman as capable and intelligent as michelle to looks, there is a huge difference in this thread of wow... she looks good. and hot. dawsons thread was so long ago that i hardly remember what he said. but the feel of his post, compared to this thread is night and day.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #50)

Mon Apr 30, 2012, 09:49 AM

51. I'm seeing a distinction without a difference

 

An entire thread devoted to a woman's appearance/fashion choices.

Michelle Obama may have great merit as a human being. Personally, I find anyone who chooses to play the role of "first lady" aka "little woman" to be wasting space. Just my opinion. And that thread is wasting more space.

There is nothing said in that thread about her being "capable" and "intelligent". Oh, well: Stunning and radiant AND brains to boot! What's not to be enchanted by??? Brains, the afterthought.

And maybe there are threads at DU about her capability and inteligence, but I think there are a lot more about her body and clothing. (I find her fashion choices utterly horrific for the most part, but I say so in my living room, not on the internet, because I do choose not to reduce women to their appearance.)

Threads feel different ways to different people, I guess.

I don't think "hot" is restricted to the sense you give it, at all, at least not the sense that "fuckability" is a function of appearance, and specifically appearance as measured by a stereotypical standard. And I'm not persuaded that is the only sense in which it was used in the thread initially in issue here. As I've said, others may have more backstory that makes that interpretation more plausible.

Personally, I think Joe Biden is extremely hot.



Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #51)

Mon Apr 30, 2012, 09:53 AM

52. i can't go with your comment that michelle is dismissed for what she is accomplishing as her role

of first lady. she has done a hell of a lot for people, even if it is the "little woman" role. i kinda leave those threads alone.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #52)

Mon Apr 30, 2012, 09:57 AM

54. sorry, but I didn't say she is "dismissed"

 

I find the entire "first lady" thing demeaning and dumb. That's me.

I've just read through more of the comments in that thread, and frankly they make me gag.

I'm always especially taken with someone calling an adult woman, in particular an obviously accomplished one, as "bright". Imagine someone calling her husband that.

We ain't gonna agree on this one. I find the thread, and the constant attention to Michelle Obama's physique and fashion, absolutely revolting.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #54)

Mon Apr 30, 2012, 10:01 AM

56. i think in your comment, you dismiss what she is doing. and whether paid or not,

it is accomplishment. and i am not going to argue too strongly. as a whole, i agree.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #51)

Mon Apr 30, 2012, 09:56 AM

53. I don't see a difference either.

That whole thread is offensive. Just as offensive as the "hot" one.

Who gives a fuck what the First Lady looks like or what she wears or what her arms look like in a sleeveless dress?

Talk about objectification...

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Reply #53)

Mon Apr 30, 2012, 09:58 AM

55. bingo

 

"Talk about objectification"

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Original post)

Tue May 1, 2012, 01:08 PM

57. "'Girls' has never been and will never be offensive.

Only to you and three other DU members. But we already had that discussion once and you got your clock cleaned by all of DU, so you know the consensus on the not-offensive nature of that everyday common word."


( stalkers!)

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #57)

Tue May 1, 2012, 01:28 PM

58. wtf? some man telling women how they are suppose to feel and think?

wtf is this. god the stupid.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #58)

Tue May 1, 2012, 01:31 PM

59. Didn't we agree long ago to stop feigning surprise at these things?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #59)

Tue May 1, 2012, 01:55 PM

60. bah hahahaha

shamefacedly.... yes. yes we did.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #57)

Tue May 1, 2012, 02:06 PM

61. That one is a piece of work.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Reply #61)

Tue May 1, 2012, 02:33 PM

62. You ain't kiddin!

I put up a link to an encyclopedia as a way of providing a definition and I get 'so you're just making up terms now' or something to that effect.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #62)

Tue May 1, 2012, 02:58 PM

63. that one has come under discussion on MIR team lately.... n/t

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scout (Reply #63)

Tue May 1, 2012, 03:02 PM

64. as he should. nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Original post)

Mon May 14, 2012, 10:16 AM

65. Seen on DU

Repeated characterizations of feminists as humorless and sex hating. Accusations are sometimes made in a subtle way, and sometimes as a very specific statement.

This one used to bug me and I have turned around 180 degrees on it.

Think about how absurd this one is. For this to even be an "insult", a woman would have to actually believe that one of her primary purposes in life is to be viewed by men as fun and fuckable.

And apparently one of the worst things they can think of to say is that we are humorless and hate sex, and that is somehow meant to hurt our feelings. By extension, that means anyone saying that as an "insult", would seem to believe that women are actually meant to provide men with fun and sex.

Highly misogynistic... but not much of an insult when you follow it down the rabbit hole.

The more I think about it, the more it makes me .

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Reply #65)

Mon May 14, 2012, 10:23 AM

66. no. it is not much of an insult. and clear their misogyny in use. one way or another men attack

womens sexuality to get a woman to shut up. either thru the pornification of women, the controls the rw religions use, or hate sex if a woman dares challenge either of the first two.

the only insult is attacking a womans sexuality.

and it is clear the effective job it does. this is why many of our girls and women become a part of the game. they dont get the simplicity of it, and dont want to be labeled hating sex.

3 decades, more or less, of having sex, i am hardly going to swoon on the couch at such an accusation. how messed up would that be.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Reply #65)

Mon May 14, 2012, 10:52 AM

67. how many feminists does it take to change a lightbulb?

 

That's not funny.



Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #67)

Mon May 14, 2012, 10:56 AM

68. Oh, that's good!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #67)

Mon May 14, 2012, 10:57 AM

69. Took me a minute.

I am humor challenged.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Original post)

Mon May 14, 2012, 11:23 AM

70. Feminists here are calling all men rapists or child molesters.

That is the biggest basher's lie I see repeated here over and over again.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueIris (Reply #70)

Mon May 14, 2012, 11:35 AM

71. oh, man... so very stupid and having to do a lot of twisting and turning

to try to make that work.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueIris (Reply #70)

Mon May 14, 2012, 02:20 PM

72. That makes me wonder...

 

Would people be happier if we did start saying that all men are rapists and/or child molesters?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laconicsax (Reply #72)

Mon May 14, 2012, 02:30 PM

73. Given that even the relatively innocuous term 'mansplain', despite not being used hardly ever on DU,

has generated a noticeable amount of complaints, I would expect an action such as you've described would result in the message board equivalent of a full nuclear meltdown.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #73)

Mon May 14, 2012, 02:38 PM

74. Careful now...

 

I've read that "mansplain" is a nasty, gender-based insult and has no place on DU. Bitch and cunt, however...those are just "tools of language."

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laconicsax (Reply #74)

Mon May 14, 2012, 02:44 PM

75. Oh yes, too true, how could I be so callous...

Seriously though, after the most recent complaints about the word appearing on this site, I did a search for it. I didn't like to think I had used it in a discussion though its entirely possible.

Strangely there were extremely few results... so perhaps I didn't. That would be good. I'm only human though and learning like everyone else.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Original post)

Mon May 14, 2012, 04:26 PM

76. well peoples, i think i am about done on du, but this group

our jurors and group of men now have free hand at any ugly comment to me and jurors not only allow, but participate. pretty ugly out there. i think i will be my quiet self, but in this forum. stretch out with a nice cup of coffee..... and leave it at that.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #76)

Mon May 14, 2012, 04:41 PM

77. Take a break, sea.

I do wonder if half of 'em aren't actually moles and trolls who do this stuff just for the sole purpose of stirring the pot. That's why I don't participate in these "discussions" more. I think half of them are "arguing" just like a cat plays with a mouse. Torture it for fun just to see what it does next. Honestly, I just can't get that worked up about anonymous people spewing bile.

I like to have conversations and exchange ideas... but the disingenuous back-and-forth shit slinging... not so much.

I don't need to win the internetz.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #76)


Response to boston bean (Original post)


Response to seabeyond (Reply #79)

Wed May 30, 2012, 05:52 PM

80. time for another break from du

That thread...

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #80)


Response to redqueen (Reply #80)


Response to boston bean (Original post)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 09:20 AM

83. There is no patriarchy.

What there is NOT is some global "patriarchy" penis-conspiracy, contrary to what some small isolated cultlike internet communities (links and reference, again, upthread) believe.


It simply doesn't exist.

Apparently if you think there is, you are part of a "cult" of penis-haters.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Reply #83)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 09:35 AM

84. yup...

man, isnt this the time to throw in a near naked woman and state.... men just like to see sexy.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Reply #83)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 10:18 AM

85. I think most on DU would be offended by this opinion on a progressive site.

However, they receive a lot vocal support from some who don't understand that this is the reason for all their snark and meta posts attacking a group of feminists on DU.

Whatever.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #85)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 10:20 AM

86. the reality

the ironic, and even the funny of it all. they are showing an exact experience of what it is all about, in their attempts to dismiss it.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink